Epistomology & Science

[morningstar2651]

I was recently reading Moonchild, a novel by Aleister Crowley. I haven't finished it yet, but I wanted to share a quote from the novel.

"I thought as much," said Cyril.

"I didn't," said Iff frankly, "and it worries me. I'm not guessing, like you are -- and it's no credit to guess right, my young friend, but a deceit of the devil, like winning at roulette. I'm deducing from what I know. Therefore, the fact that I'm wrong proves that there is something I don't know -- and it worries me...

Guesses, even when correct, are derived from flawed thinking. A guess begins with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it.

Scientific theories are not guesses, but are conclusions derived from evidence - working the opposite direction of a guess. Scientists rejoice if some point of a theory is shown to be flawed. This doesn't destroy the theory -- it simply reveals that there is new information that the theory must take into account.

 

[Washington]

Guesses, even when correct, are derived from flawed thinking. A guess begins with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it.

I suppose if you want to consider ignorance to be flawed thinking you might have a point, but that's not how I think of ignorance.

Scientific theories are not guesses, but are conclusions derived from evidence

Again, I disagree. Theories are not conclusions in opposition to guesses, but informed opinions as to what the nature of something is. In a sense opinions can be considered conclusions, but only tentative ones, and because they are tentative---open to change--they can also be said to be guesses.

It pretty much depends on how one defines these terms.

And, I fail to see how they "[work in] the opposite direction of a guess."

 

[morningstar2651]

I suppose if you want to consider ignorance to be flawed thinking you might have a point, but that's not how I think of ignorance.

I don't consider ignorance to be flawed thinking. I would prefer that someone say "I don't know" rather than pass a guess off as knowledge.

Again, I disagree. Theories are not conclusions in opposition to guesses, but informed opinions as to what the nature of something is. In a sense opinions can be considered conclusions, but only tentative ones, and because they are tentative---open to change--they can also be said to be guesses.

It pretty much depends on how one defines these terms.

Some good points. I'll take some time to think them over.

And, I fail to see how they "[work in] the opposite direction of a guess."

I'll try explaining my reasoning.

In formal logic, assumptions are valid only in conditional proofs. Here is the example from the wikipedia article:

1. A → B ("If A, then B")
2. B → C ("If B, then C")
3. A (conditional proof assumption, "Suppose A is true")
4. B (follows from lines 1 and 3, modus ponens; "If A then B; A, therefore B")
5. C (follows from lines 2 and 4, modus ponens; "If B then C; B, therefore C")
6. A → C (follows from lines 3-5, conditional proof; "If A, then C")

However, we can't conclude that A, B, or C are true or false. The flaw I see is using the assumption outside of a conditional proof (removing the sixth and final step of the above example).

In plain english: "I assume A is true, therefore B and C are also true."

A, B, and C may be true, but we don't have enough evidence to conclude so.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would prefer that someone say "I don't know" rather than pass a guess off as knowledge.

I see you don't deal with customers when they ask you on the phone how long it'll take for their pizza to get there, do you?

Try to convince them that you don't know because A gives rise to B, etc., and see if that'll wash.

 

[juvenissun]

I was recently reading Moonchild, a novel by Aleister Crowley. I haven't finished it yet, but I wanted to share a quote from the novel.

Guesses, even when correct, are derived from flawed thinking. A guess begins with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it.

Scientific theories are not guesses, but are conclusions derived from evidence - working the opposite direction of a guess. Scientists rejoice if some point of a theory is shown to be flawed. This doesn't destroy the theory -- it simply reveals that there is new information that the theory must take into account.

Not quite as you think. Before you start to gather evidence, you have to guess first. Guessing means idea. Idea goes ahead of everything.

 

[Naraoia]

Scientists rejoice if some point of a theory is shown to be flawed.

I think they do more head-scratching than rejoicing

 

[Naraoia]

Not quite as you think. Before you start to gather evidence, you have to guess first. Guessing means idea. Idea goes ahead of everything.

There's guesses and guesses, though. An educated guess based on what we already know =/= a wild guess based on what we wish to be true.

 

[Washington]

I'll try explaining my reasoning.

In formal logic, assumptions are valid only in conditional proofs. Here is the example from the wikipedia article:

However, we can't conclude that A, B, or C are true or false. The flaw I see is using the assumption outside of a conditional proof (removing the sixth and final step of the above example).

In plain english: "I assume A is true, therefore B and C are also true."

A, B, and C may be true, but we don't have enough evidence to conclude so.

All theories are conditional. Conditional on the interpertation of the evidence.

Guesses are also conditional. Conditional on the information selected to form them.

And both theories and guesses can be constructed on "conditional proof."

One of the difference I see is that theories generally consist of more conditional proof thinking and are more obviously in this respect. So I still fail to see how the two work in opposite directions.
Another difference is that guesses are far less formal and based on far less substantial evidence. Guesses are shot off the hip, whereas theories are the result of very careful considerations. Both of which are merely matters of degree.